Akshay Kumar Thanks Modi For Making Bollywood Famous All-over - Page 6

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

If we are going by "native" instead of "dominant" group. How far back do we go?

Nativity in the new world is relatively easier to determine because it was undiscovered until 600 years ago. How do we determine nativity in lands that were part of migrations, trade routes, and invasions that saw generations of cultural exchange both organic and coerced? How does a faith with an origin in one river valley claim nativity to an entire subcontinent? When Hindu rulers have also conquered kingdoms and asserted their rule over other people, why does it get to assume the moral high ground?

Perhaps to some people, these historical contexts make sense. But for me, Hindu nationalism/Hindutva and white nationalism are the same - privileged dominant groups unwilling to yield their dominance and claiming equity is oppression.

would it be polite to roll the eyes at this?😆

first, I believe you are indulging in moral equivalence by saying that hindu rulers were as much invaders of foreign lands as were the mughals and the brits. They were not. Nowhere near the same order of magnitude. By the way, is it ok to have spelled out mughals and brits... or would that be taboo in the PC far- left way of thinking?😉

second, show us anything you can come up where the proponents of hindutva are talking about dominating others. Yes, a lot of hindus today want equality and are more assertive in that regard. In all this, they are asking for a level playing field. But dominate? Where did you get that?😆

but given that you raised the subject of "dominance", I want to suggest that instead what is happening is the following:

1. folks from certain religions do not like hindus becoming assertive, never mind hindus even today are still nowhere as assertive as those religions. Tough luck. That's going to happen as more hindus realize they were taken for a ride.

2. some hindus, especially amongst us in the west, have no sense of self-respect and self-confidence. They are about the only people anywhere in the world who will suck up to the whites and criticize their own religion/ country to get ahead. Please note that I am OK with things in our country/ religion being criticized.... just that it is not ok imo to do so with outsiders (like families that dont go out and talk crap). Other countries have worse problems, but it is only the self-loathing hindus who will dump on their own. I can see that despicable lot everyday on bloomberg and some of the far left whacked up TV channels. Reminds me of folks who would sell their own mother down the river.😉

coming back to AK, i am glad that he has a sense of pride in his roots... and it can be seen in the choice of movies he has acted in... even before Modi came on the scene. And technically, he's not even Indian.

Originally posted by: EXOL

oh which movie Modi has acted in ? 🤣

Movie ki kya zaroorat hai...24/7 live show hai...jab marzi dekh lo..😊

Originally posted by: NoraSM

He is not wrong, Modi is the best actor in India

Akshay’s buttering doesn’t phase me but I do oh so love seeing people here get riled up at Bollywood’s pro BJP stance.😆keep the wtf statements coming please, logo ko angry react karte hue dekh kar bahut mazza aata hai.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

would it be polite to roll the eyes at this?😆

first, I believe you are indulging in moral equivalence by saying that hindu rulers were as much invaders of foreign lands as were the mughals and the brits. They were not. Nowhere near the same order of magnitude. By the way, is it ok to have spelled out mughals and brits... or would that be taboo in the PC far- left way of thinking?😉

second, show us anything you can come up where the proponents of hindutva are talking about dominating others. Yes, a lot of hindus today want equality and are more assertive in that regard. In all this, they are asking for a level playing field. But dominate? Where did you get that?😆

but given that you raised the subject of "dominance", I want to suggest that instead what is happening is the following:

1. folks from certain religions do not like hindus becoming assertive, never mind hindus even today are still nowhere as assertive as those religions. Tough luck. That's going to happen as more hindus realize they were taken for a ride.

2. some hindus, especially amongst us in the west, have no sense of self-respect and self-confidence. They are about the only people anywhere in the world who will suck up to the whites and criticize their own religion/ country to get ahead. Please note that I am OK with things in our country/ religion being criticized.... just that it is not ok imo to do so with outsiders (like families that dont go out and talk crap). Other countries have worse problems, but it is only the self-loathing hindus who will dump on their own. I can see that despicable lot everyday on bloomberg and some of the far left whacked up TV channels. Reminds me of folks who would sell their own mother down the river.😉

coming back to AK, i am glad that he has a sense of pride in his roots... and it can be seen in the choice of movies he has acted in... even before Modi came on the scene. And technically, he's not even Indian.

Thank you for this.

I wanted to reply on how they are maligning Hindutva as if it's got something to do with supremacy or dominating others. When in reality it's about survival and resistance against oppression and dominance.

However, replying to them is wastage of time. The far left here or elsewhere will gradually become irrelevant. with the advent of social media people are getting more aware about the other side of the story that was purposely hidden from them. The hypocrisy and double standards of far left can be seen even by a blind. Even I was liberal secular at one time.... And then I grew up.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

If we are going by "native" instead of "dominant" group. How far back do we go?

Nativity in the new world is relatively easier to determine because it was undiscovered until 600 years ago. How do we determine nativity in lands that were part of migrations, trade routes, and invasions that saw generations of cultural exchange both organic and coerced? How does a faith with an origin in one river valley claim nativity to an entire subcontinent? When Hindu rulers have also conquered kingdoms and asserted their rule over other people, why does it get to assume the moral high ground?

Perhaps to some people, these historical contexts make sense. But for me, Hindu nationalism/Hindutva and white nationalism are the same - privileged dominant groups unwilling to yield their dominance and claiming equity is oppression.

We're hardly talking about only nativity. Hindus were ruled by Muslim rulers (Kings and Emperors) for 800 years, whereas Black people were oppressed and treated worse than animals by Whites.

There's no question of an equivalence between White and Hindu nationalism. The equivalence is in negative, in fact. It's like saying, "Tagore had a beard, the goat has a beard, so both are the same" (Popular Bengali idiom).

Tagore and goat both have a beard, but they're hardly the same, right? Same goes for White and Hindu nationalism. While I'm not a fan of Hindutva, it doesn't deserve any comparison with neo-Nazism. That's an insult to History and human intelligence.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

We're hardly talking about only nativity. Hindus were ruled by Muslim rulers (Kings and Emperors) for 800 years, whereas Black people were oppressed and treated worse than animals by Whites.

There's no question of an equivalence between White and Hindu nationalism. The equivalence is in negative, in fact. It's like saying, "Tagore had a beard, the goat has a beard, so both are the same" (Popular Bengali idiom).

Tagore and goat both have a beard, but they're hardly the same, right? Same goes for White and Hindu nationalism. While I'm not a fan of Hindutva, it doesn't deserve any comparison with neo-Nazism. That's an insult to History and human intelligence.

agree. In fact, I think it's rich for anyone to be speaking of Neo-Nazism and Hindutva in the same breath. The Nazis sent millions of Jews and others to the gas chambers... whereas Hindutva has never persecuted others.... and doesn't talk about doing so. Also if we talk about Hindus, there's a case to be made that the world's biggest genocides in all of history were carried out on Hindus... first by the Mughals and later by the British when Churchill/ Brits starved millions of Indians in Bengal and diverted food to England. The genocide caried out by the Mughals was in fact unprecedented in terms of scale. So its rather rich that some people find equivalence when the reverse holds.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

We're hardly talking about only nativity. Hindus were ruled by Muslim rulers (Kings and Emperors) for 800 years, whereas Black people were oppressed and treated worse than animals by Whites.

There's no question of an equivalence between White and Hindu nationalism. The equivalence is in negative, in fact. It's like saying, "Tagore had a beard, the goat has a beard, so both are the same" (Popular Bengali idiom).

Tagore and goat both have a beard, but they're hardly the same, right? Same goes for White and Hindu nationalism. While I'm not a fan of Hindutva, it doesn't deserve any comparison with neo-Nazism. That's an insult to History and human intelligence.

Within Hindu religion, there was no oppression by the brahmins and kshatriyas? No oppression of lower castes? Untouchables? How many centuries did it go on?

There was no slavery in India? Or didn't it count when it was brown on brown?

C'mon. No religion, no ethnicity, has been any less culpable than the other at oppressing the weak. Difference is most are progressing into a more just idea of society.

Akki ne toh Modi uncle ki keh ke le li. 😂

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

agree. In fact, I think it's rich for anyone to be speaking of Neo-Nazism and Hindutva in the same breath. The Nazis sent millions of Jews and others to the gas chambers... whereas Hindutva has never persecuted others.... and doesn't talk about doing so. Also if we talk about Hindus, there's a case to be made that the world's biggest genocides in all of history were carried out on Hindus... first by the Mughals and later by the British when Churchill/ Brits starved millions of Indians in Bengal and diverted food to England. The genocide caried out by the Mughals was in fact unprecedented in terms of scale. So its rather rich that some people find equivalence when the reverse holds.

Mughals were brutal.

But Hindus committed plenty of atrocities on their own... the lower castes or Hindus of diff religions. Just because Indian kings didn't advance out of the subcontinent doesn't mean they weren't just as cruel and despicable.

Churchill/Brits didn't starve Bengal to feed Brits. They simply burned down the crops when Japan was advancing to make sure the enemy found only barren land. The Brits didn't care that the Indians would starve to death.

The Nazis were supported by Bose, btw. I don't think anyone was unaware of what the Germans were doing by then.